Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32293387›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020

Validity of EQ-5D utility index and minimal clinically important difference estimation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Eunmi Bae, Sang-Eun Choi, Haeyoung Lee, Gyeongseon Shin, Daewon Kang

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of minimum important changes for generic multi-attribute utility instruments and recommendations for their estimation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Vitamin D for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Psychometric testing of two respiratory bolt-on items to EQ-5D-5L in patients with obstructive airway diseases.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Humanistic and Economic Burden of COPD Patients in Urban China: A Propensity Score Matching Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eunmi BaeCollege of Pharmacy, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong, 30019, South Korea.
Sang-Eun ChoiCollege of Pharmacy, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong, 30019, South Korea. sechoi@korea.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3111-1144
Haeyoung LeeUniversity of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gyeongseon ShinCollege of Pharmacy, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong, 30019, South Korea.
Daewon KangCollege of Pharmacy, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong, 30019, South Korea.

Funding

National Research Foundation (KR) NRF-2017R1A2B1003846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe discriminatory ability of multi-attribute utility (MAU) measures compared to condition-specific measures (CSM) in assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an unsettled issue. This study investigated the quality of life of patients with COPD with three different HRQoL instruments and examined whether they could differentiate between adjacent severity groups in a statistically and clinically meaningful manner. In the process, the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) of the EQ-5D utility index were estimated.

methodsCross-sectional survey data were collected from patients with mild to very severe COPD in South Korea. In addition to demographic and clinical information, the following HRQoL questionnaires were used: The three-level five-dimensional Euro-Quality of Life tool (EQ-5D-3L), the EQ-Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS), and the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test (CAT). Patients' health-related quality of life was analyzed with reference to severity groups based on the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification. To investigate the discriminatory ability of the HRQoL instruments between COPD severity groups, tests examining variance, covariance, and standardized mean difference were performed. After estimating the MCID of the EQ-5D utility index using the anchor-based method, we investigated whether the differences in the EQ-5D utility scores between groups exceeded the clinically meaningful minimum level.

resultsA total of 298 patients completed this study. All the quality of life scores showed statistically significant differences between the GOLD severity groups. The pooled MCID estimate for the EQ-5D utility index was 0.028 (range: 0.017-0.033). Even after adjusting for other factors affecting quality of life, the EQ-5D utility index differentiated the GOLD groups well.

conclusionsWe conclude that the EQ-5D utility index is a valid instrument for measuring the quality of life of patients with COPD, and the pooled MCID estimate for the EQ-5D utility index was 0.028.

Indexed as

Minimal Clinically Important DifferenceSurveys and QuestionnairesActivities of Daily LivingAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeRepublic of KoreaRespiratory Function TestsSeverity of Illness IndexChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEQ-5DHealth-related quality of lifeKoreaMCIDUtility

Identifiers

PMID32293387
PMCPMC7092534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.